Click here to view the lawsuit filed by two dismissed top administrators at Washburn University.

KEY PLAYERS

Jerry Farley: He became the 14th president of Washburn University in 1997. Previously, Farley held positions as the vice president of community relations and economic development and vice president for administration at the University of Oklahoma. He also was the chief financial officer at the University of Oklahoma’s Health Sciences Center and at Oklahoma State University at Stillwater. Farley holds an undergraduate degree in finance and accounting, a master’s of business administration degree and a doctorate in higher education administration, all from the University of Oklahoma.

Wanda Hill: Former vice president for administration and treasurer. She was hired on a series of one-year written contracts beginning in September 1999. She was terminated April 1. John Moore has been named the interim vice president for administration and treasurer.

Robin Bowen: Former vice president for academic affairs. She was hired on a series of one-year written contracts beginning July 2007. She was terminated March 30. Nancy Tate has been named acting vice president for academic affairs.

David Monical: Former director of governmental and university relations. Monical served at Washburn for 25 years and took advantage of the university’s early retirement incentive. He said he announced his retirement about six weeks before Hill and Bowen were terminated.

Related Stories

Two former Washburn University administrators allege in a lawsuit filed Thursday against the institution, its Board of Regents and president Jerry Farley that they were terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected whistle-blower activities.

Wanda Hill, former treasurer and vice president for administration, was terminated April 1. Robin Bowen, former vice president for academic affairs, was terminated March 30.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Topeka lists three counts for the action: deprivation of the plaintiffs' Fifth and 14th Amendment rights to due process against all three parties, breach of contract against Washburn University and the board, and common law retaliatory discharge (whistle-blower) against all three defendants.

For each count, Hill and Bowen are seeking damages, back pay, lost benefits and other damages in excess of $75,000. Hill didn't return phone calls on Thursday, and Bowen couldn't be reached.

"I believe it is extremely unfortunate what happened to these two well-respected professionals," said attorney John Frieden, of Frieden, Unrein, Forbes & Biggs, the Topeka law firm representing Bowen and Hill.

Farley denied the lawsuit's allegations in an interview Thursday with The Topeka Capital-Journal.

Board of regents member Dan Lykins said he has "110 percent confidence in Dr. Farley. His reputation for being honest and upfront is beyond reproach."

The remaining eight board members said they had no comment or didn't return telephone calls.

In an April interview with The Capital-Journal, Farley said Hill and Bowen had stepped down from their posts but wouldn't elaborate, stating it was a personnel issue and it "would be unfair to reveal the details." He also praised the women in a memo distributed to Washburn staff members.

Farley on Thursday said he hadn't had a chance to read through the complaint but was adamant that he would never ask administrators to be dishonest. He also said he has never lied to the board of regents. Both actions are alleged in the lawsuit.

Washburn's president was supposed to conduct annual written evaluations of Hill and Bowen, according to the complaint, but failed to do so. The lawsuit alleges Farley in an e-mail to Hill dated April 25, 2008, said the nine years Hill worked for him "had flown by and has been a delight."

In their capacity as administrators, the two women frequently were approached by members of the board of regents concerning various matters relating to the university, the complaint states. During 2008, the two were approached separately by at least three members of the board of regents with concerns about Farley's job performance and verbal representations Farley made to the board. The board members said they were concerned information Farley related to them in private communications and at board meetings wasn't consistent with the facts. The lawsuit says the women were assured by at least three board members their jobs would be protected.

In 2008, the complaint states Farley wasn't truthful about the university skewing enrollment and credit hour calculations by including "phantom students," which were students who enrolled for classes but didn't attend them. During a meeting on Jan. 1, 2009, Bowen claims Farley instructed her to forgo recommendations to drop those students from Washburn's enrollment.

"This was done so that students could be shown as enrolled to artificially inflate enrollment numbers and prevent Washburn University from discovering students who wrongfully received financial aid credited to their university accounts," the complaint states.

The lawsuit also states Washburn provided more in scholarships than had been authorized in two consecutive school years. In 2007-08, the resulting financial shortfall was $500,000 because of scholarships awarded the previous year. Board members asked Bowen and Hill about the incident, saying Farley claimed this was the first time it had occurred. Both Bowen and Hill confirmed the scholarship issue had happened the previous year as well, and both said Farley knew about the resulting shortfall. The lawsuit says Hill then produced an e-mail from Farley that referenced the first financial shortfall.

According to the lawsuit, "In subsequent discussions with another board member regarding this issue, the board member thanked plaintiff Hill for her candor, and stated, 'Jerry lies to the board and should be fired.' "

The plaintiffs also said Farley knew board members were discussing his performance as president and were considering termination. The complaint alleges Farley instructed Bowen and Hill to tell him when board members reached out to them and the substance of their conversations. The lawsuit also states Farley instructed Bowen and Hill on techniques they could use to appear to be answering questions honestly to board members but evade making a direct factual response.

On Thursday, Farley said he didn't ask Hill and Bowen to evade questions.

"I would never ask a person to do that," he said. "Absolutely not."

Farley said no board members have approached him about his performance. Farley said he was evaluated by the board in the spring with no action taken.

The lawsuit states JuliAnn Mazachek, president of Washburn University Foundation, formerly known as Washburn Endowment Association, was contacted by board members about the possible effect on Washburn if Farley were to be terminated. The complaint states Mazachek told board members she believed she was qualified and prepared to assume the position of president.

Mazachek, who has worked with Farley for 12 years, said Thursday she did have a conversation "where different options were discussed."

"We did have a discussion about my concern for the institution and having the potential for disruption in the leadership," she said, "and that I was willing to serve the university in whatever capacity best suit it."

In response to the lawsuit, Mazachek said "under Dr. Farley's leadership we have seen tremendous advancement in the institution and in the position that we are in for the future. I have never found Dr. Farley to be dishonest."

David Monical, former director of governmental and university relations, announced a few weeks before Hill and Bowen were terminated that he was taking advantage of the university's early retirement incentive.

Monical said Thursday he was close with Hill and Bowen and was shocked they were terminated.

"They were first-class administrators," Monical said. "They worked hard and were very dedicated."

He said he never heard any criticism from Farley about the two.

"As I think back on it, I think they might have gotten stuck between the president and the board," he said. "My individual opinion is I personally never had a problem with Dr. Farley. I think he has done some remarkable things for that institution."

When asked if he thought Farley had been dishonest, Monical said "that is a personal matter" and he didn't want to elaborate because of the litigation.

"His leadership early on with a return to an emphasis on traditional-age students led to a dramatic growth," Monical said. "Were there issues we didn't agree on? Sure. I think there are victims all around in this."

Ann Marie Bush can be reached at (785) 295-1207 or ann.bush@cjonline.com.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

The problems Farley has swept under the rug are all starting to show up: writing letter in support of pedophile, missing money, student loans for WU going to Core First when he was on their Board of Directors, dropping enrollment (phantom students), breaking custodians to outsource, purging those who know too much, Wow this is just off the top of my head.
Time for peewee to move on

It's too bad. Farley is a great public face on the school but his management skills are pathetic. He is so worried about PR for Washburn that he ignores problems for fear of negative public opinion, and let's them blow up in his face. Wanda Hill was a major problem that took way too long to deal with. I don't doubt her accusations, but I bet she was more than happy to be the two faced go between playing each side (Farley and the board members) for her own gain. She only got angry when it bit her in the butt and she came out on the losing end. This isn't the first job she's been fired from and it won't be the last I'm sure. Unfortunately she did a lot of damage before they got her out of there.

I know for a fact that Bowen was fired after he had fired an employee at WU Tech in retaliation for him speaking up. It was a mess that I am surprised stayed out of the newspapers. Maybe they want to go back and research that! Bowen needed to go. Don't know about the other one. I'm not saying WU is perfect, but Bowen is a joke!

Another of the old fashioned bullies. Who like Obama just changes facts to make themselves look good. Haven't learned if you do it right and legally there is no need to lie later. Pay the two who were wrongfully terminated and send Farley and do a complete review of current employees and a house cleaning where needed.

not one person who spoke out here had anything to back up their accusations. Forget letting the man defend himself or waiting to find out what happens with this lawsuit, let's just have a good ol' fashioned mob chase him out or lynch him.

Having said that, compare WU today compared to when Farley arrived and you should see plenty of reasons to give him the benefit of the doubt. He has been good for Washburn and the city of Topeka.

I agree with cdzmo though...this town seems to do everything it can to find something to gripe, moan and complain about. Who in their right mind with a high profile job would WANT to stay here if given a choice?

There are more people involved in wrongful termination. People have been let go after the affiliation between former KATS and WU with the setup of others coming in to replace them. The KATS campus had the honor of Mr. Farley coming to them direct and speaking on behalf of WU regarding what was going to take place and then the complete opposite happened. Over 50% of the KATS staff was released and replaced while receiving great evaluations. Is it Mr. Farley who is wrongful or the WU administrative staff working on their own with yet one more not mentioned but still with WU.
The fact of the matter is: what is best for the students of both schools and the community. The great statement, "We will not change anything at "kats" WU Tech that will affect the students". What a complete lie, all changes have affected the students, just ask one and listen to what they have to say. The students are the reason there are jobs and what should take place to keep the schools and students in this community? Let’s add the fact of how many positions is currently outsourced and how many more they are currently being negotiated for outsourcing.

So, Mazacheck thinks she'll be able to step right in and run WU? She's got to be kidding? What a joke. That lady only looks out for herself and has no other objective than to kiss whoever's backside she needs to kiss to make herself look better.

Just look into how she was hired to run the endowment association. That was about as sad a joke as this episode. She was on the search committee and wasn't even a candidate. She had absolutely no fund raising experience and then all of a sudden, out of nowhere, she was named president of that fund raising office for WU. Strangest thing you'd ever imagine.

And now she thinks she can run WU. Hilarious. Guess if those who make those kinds of decisions are dumb enough to fall for that line of BS, they deserve what they get. Unfortunately, the students will suffer in the long run.

I guess Board of Regents member Bob Storey found some ladies to manipulate. He has been trying to fire Farley for some time. Using a couple of VP's to dig up (maybe fabricate) some dirt... What a worthless regent.

This will all come out in the trial. Hopefully WU will take them on and will not settle out of court.

Setting aside for a moment the allegations against Dr. Farley, we must look at the broader picture of Wanda Hill..

For a long time Washburn had been operating as if it were a business under her position as VPAT, she was resistant to change this position and I believe that is why she was let go. Her attempts to outsource several departments of the University (the most publicized of which was Facilities Services) only prove that she was not interested in academia but the bottom line. Washburn needed a change and it was time to for Wanda to go.

Apparently she isn't willing to accept that she was viewed to be running her position poorly and she has to waste Washburn's time and money for her own personal gain. Thank you very much Wanda for possibly costing us improvements to the university and services for students. After all the students are what a University is all about.

If the allegations against Dr. Farley are true, then he should answer and face the consequences of those actions. If they are untrue, then this lawsuit has no basis and should be dismissed.

Posters are like Nancy Grace and convict without comment from the accused??? First, what about the NUMEROUS other examples that farley botched?
When Monical has made the statements in this revised story, it is even more a reflection on farley's mismanagement. He was involved daily with farley and knows the truth.
The problem isn't that farley made some very good changes to Washburn, he did!
His time has passed and he is another example of the peter principle.
The water is up over his bowtie and rising...time for him to swim off or drown in his own doing.

It pains me to know that two WU administrators have to be subject to such ridicule from a bow-tie wearing hypocrite, they were doing their jobs.
How can someone with such "praised" personal character, an "honest" person write a letter using Washburns name to ask for leniency on CONVICTED pedophile.

ozwyn
And what will come of it? Who hired these two, who evaluated them, and what happens to the U? Everyone loses in these situations, and alot of harm comes to even those who have real grievances. 12 years is probably long enough for a president, and not long enough to fire a short-term vp.

The best indicator of future performance is past performance. farley has MANY documented (see CJ Archives) massive blunders. Is he wrong on this charge? As I said above, we will see...did you not understand that?
Why would Mazachek be asked what the impact would be if he was fired? Something sure stinks, and it looks like you want to ignore ALL the past and say it's a rush to judgement...Ha

everyone needs to settle down and wait and see how this plays out. i think president farley has at least earned the chance to be able to respond. no matter what happens at this point, it will all end up damaging WU, at least for a little while, and that is really sad.

perktwo1, what's the point of posting basically the same thing four times? we all get it...you don't like dr. farley. you're gonna have to come up with better examples than you have listed to sway anyone.

finally, please spare us from juliann mazacheck riding to washburn's "rescue!" talk about scary! the way the article reads, she was asked about how president farley's departure would affect the foundation's ability to raise money, and her answer was that she is qualified and prepared to serve as president of the university! that wasn't even the question. talk about chutzpah. she's the alexander haig of washburn.

I have my own opinion of Farley and Washburn, but I will keep them to myself right now. I just wanted to tell you that I laughed my backside off when I read your last line "She's the Alexander Haig of Washburn." That line just made my day... I'm still chuckling over it. Thank you so much for brightening my day!

There seems to be an enormous amount of editing errors lately. This is the 5th one I caught on first read through in a week. Remember, writing is their JOB. I wish everyone would do their job correctly and make sure articles are free of errors.